UN Report A 'Moral
Indictment' Of The US
By Larisa Alexandrovna
Rawstory.com
8-5-6


The United Nations Human Rights Committee has released its final report
after a series of hearings in Geneva last week, which RAW STORY has learned
amounts to a moral indictment of US treaty violations, as well as what some
attendees and delegates described as US hubris, willful disregard for
international and domestic law, and contempt for the Committee itself.

Understanding the Hearings

At the hearings, signatory nations to the Conventions against Torture and
Other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment and Punishment (CAT) and the
1992 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)?one of two
treaties that make up what is commonly referred to as the International Bill
of Rights-- presented reports on their implementation of the agreed-upon
standards of the treaties. The Committee holds hearings every four years to
review the compliance status of ICCPR signatory member nations.

As part of that review, the official State report is presented along with
what is called a ?shadow report,? a rebuttal from non-government
organizations (NGO), advocacy groups, and citizen representatives. The US
?shadow report? was prepared by The Coalition for Human Rights at Home, a
coalition of 142 not-for-profit groups.

The shadow report delivered -- a whopping 456 pages -- documents domestic
human rights abuses generally go unreported. The report meticulously details
over 100 instances of human rights violations, as a response to the official
report by the US. The US for its part was seven years late in delivering any
sort of report, something it is obligated to do as a signatory of the ICCPR.

Cat and Mouse

The Geneva hearings were only the latest back and forth between the
Committee and the US, following a series of allegations and cases that have
already been well discussed, debated, and reviewed. The report summarizes
just briefly what has been an ongoing attempt by the Committee to compel the
US to participate, as it is obligated to do by both the ICCPR and CAT, and
to explain its reasons for not participating

The US has thus far offered very little in the support of a self-proclaimed
stellar human rights record. Rather, much of what is presented at the
hearings, in written responses to Committee questions, and in press
statements, shows a nation that on one hand touts international treaties as
necessary, imposing them on other nations, and at the same time reminds the
Committee repeatedly of its own sovereignty, despite being a full fledged
signatory to both the ICCPR and CAT treaties.

The interplay between the Committee and the US is circular at best, working
essentially like a cat and mouse game. Delegates have indicated to HYPERLINK
"http://rawstory.com"RAW STORY that written requests for information from
the committee are often responded to by US indications that it has already
answered the questions. While the US typically, they say, specifies when and
where they answered previously, they do not attempt clarify.

A particularly clear example of this can be seen in the US answer question
13 in one written response to the Committee prior to the hearings. The
question read as follows:

The State Party, including through the National Security Agency (NSA),
reportedly has monitored and still monitors phone, email, and fax
communications of individuals both within and outside the U.S., without any
judicial oversight. Please comment and explain how such practices comply
with article 17 of the Covenant.

Article 17 of the ICPPR reads thusly:

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his
privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his
honor and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law
against such interference or attacks.

The US contends that it is compliant, and goes on to cite various claims:
Article 17 of the Covenant provides, in relevant part, that ?[n]o one shall
be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family,
home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his honor and
reputation.? For reasons described in this response, the Terrorist
Surveillance Program is consistent with this article.

The US goes on to cite judicial overview and careful safeguards in place to
ensure it only monitors suspected terrorists, as well as example rulings
that are only tangentially connected. The US argument fails to address the
basic issue: that the FISA court was completely bypassed.

The Geneva hearings on this question went much the same way, with the US
pointing to the previous written response as their answer, as well as
addendums added after the hearings.

Jamil Dakwar, a staff attorney with the Human Rights Program ? National
Legal Department of the HYPERLINK "http://www.aclu.org"American Civil
Liberties Union (ACLU), who was present at the hearings as part of the NGO
delegation, said he could only describe the interplay ?as a dialogue of
deaf.?

The Report

The Human Rights Committee?s final report supports the NGO findings,
presenting issues of concern and indicating how those issues violate ICCPR
and CAT. The report also prescribes remedies by which the United States can
become compliant with treaty obligations, something that many human rights
advocates are not optimistic about.

"The US ratified only three human rights treaties out of seven major human
rights treaties. In fact, the US and Somalia are the only two countries in
the world that have not ratified the Convention on the Rights of the
Child--and Somalia does not have a functional government!" Said Dakwar.

"Judging from the lack of domestic application of human rights law, and from
the gap between human rights law and US law in many areas, we can certainly
say that the US government had never taken its human rights treaty
obligations seriously," he added.

Setting the tone for the relationship between a frustrated Committee and a
seemingly discourteous and defiant super power, the Committee's report
delivers an opening salvo, stating on page 1:

"The Committee regrets that the State party has not integrated into its
reports information on the implementation of the Covenant in respect of
individuals under its jurisdiction and outside its territory. The Committee
notes however that the State party has provided additional material ?out of
courtesy?. The Committee further regrets that the State party, invoking
grounds of non-applicability of the Covenant or intelligence operations,
refused to address certain serious allegations of violations of the rights
protected under the Covenant."

The Report covers issues that quite simply read like the US Bill of Rights -
citing freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, the
right to life, and the right to due process - and focuses on issues
extending well into the rest of the US Constitution, including voting rights
and so forth.

For example, the Human Rights Committee report cites the Patriot Act as a
major concern several times, including:

"The Committee, while noting some positive amendments introduced in 2006,
notes that section 213 of the Patriot Act, expanding the possibility of
delayed notification of home and office searches; section 215 regarding
access to individuals' personal records and belongings; and section 505,
relating to the issuance of national security letters, still raise issues of
concern in relation to article 17 of the Covenant. In particular, the
Committee is concerned about the restricted possibilities for the affected
persons to be informed about such measures and for them and recipients to
effectively challenge them. Furthermore, the Committee is concerned that the
State Party, including through the National Security Agency (NSA), has
monitored and still monitors phone, email, and fax communications of
individuals both within and outside the U.S., without any judicial or other
independent oversight. (articles 2(3) and 17). (page 6, point 21).

The report also expresses concern about the clear correlation between race
and poverty in America:

"The Committee is concerned by reports that some 50% of homeless people are
African American although they constitute only 12% of the U.S. population.
(articles 2 and 26).? (page 7, point 22.).

The report goes on to express concern about the large number of undocumented
workers within US borders-- and what appears to be a military solution to
the issue. It also emphasizes, both here and repeatedly in other sections,
that the US has not provided adequate information:

"The Committee regrets that it has not received sufficient information on
the measures the State party envisages adopting in relation to the
reportedly nine million undocumented migrants now in the United States of
America. While noting the information provided by the delegation that
National Guard troops will not engage in direct law enforcement duties in
the apprehension or detention of aliens, the Committee remains concern about
the increased level of militarization on the southwest border with Mexico.
(articles 12 and 26).? (page 8, point 27).

The Committee's questions, hearings, and the report all indicate that the
international community is well aware of US law, Constitutional issues, and
domestic policies that are in clear violation of the ICCPR, CAT, and State
law.

During the media roundtable held on July 17, HYPERLINK
"http://geneva.usmission.gov/Press2006/0717PressBriefing.html"Waxman touted
the human rights record of the US with great vigor.

"Indeed, few countries in the world could claim greater protections of, for
example, speech, press, association or religion than the United States. The
United States also historically promotes these same values around the world
and continues to do so as part of the President's Freedom Agenda," Waxman
said.

Facts provided by the US NGO delegation, which numbers 65 citizen delegates,
the largest ever NGO delegation for any State do not support the position of
Waxman and the official US delegation.

Additionally, many of the policies criticized in the report bypass
legislative attempts to correct. President Bush has bypassed corrective
measures by issuing more than 700 signing statements.

Political Cost

The official state delegation from the US was composed largely of members of
the State Department, and was headed by Matthew Waxman, Principal Deputy
Director of the Policy Planning Staff at the Department of State.

In his opening address,
http://geneva.usmission.gov/Press2006/0718iccprResponse.html Waxman cited
the attacks of September 11, 2001, setting the tone for subsequent answers
to questions the committee raised with regard to domestic detainment and
interrogation of terrorist suspects, and programs that have been implemented
in response:

"First, the United States is engaged in a real, not rhetorical, armed
conflict with al Qaeda and its affiliates and supporters, as noted in
multiple declaration by al Qaeda in the 1990s and as reflected in al Qaeda's
heinous attack on September 11, 2001, an attack that killed more than 3000
innocent civilians. It is important to clarify the distinction we draw
between the struggle in which all countries are engaged in a 'global war on
terrorism' and the legal meaning of our nation?s armed conflict with al
Qaeda, its affiliates and supporters."

Waxman, who previously served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for
Detainee Affairs, and Director of Security & Justice Affairs in the
Washington office of the Iraq Coalition Provisional Authority, was joined by
other key State Department officials and legal experts as part of the US
delegation.

When asked why the US continues to be a signatory to international human
rights treaties if it has no intention of taking seriously its obligations
under those treaties, Lisa Crooms, Constitutional and international law
professor at the Howard University School of Law, opined that the US wishes
to 'maintain some semblance of being a human rights protector.'

"The political cost of opting out would be too great. It is easier to claim
to be bound and not really be bound," she added.

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Videotaped_death_of_US_inmate_at_0725.htm